> Gary,
> There would be solutions for developing a reformed variety of English spelling, which could then be transferred to Shavian script. In terms of the Latin alphabet, a solution may be possible where the word shape remains the same for all varieties but dialect differences are catered for by adding or dropping diacritic markers, as has been done in many reform proposals.
> Dan

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!! Nooooooo! Not diacritics!

Take a look at written Vietnamese. Diacritics are murder on aging
eyes. I think diacritics come in third after root canals and stepping
on rusty nails in my list things to avoid at all costs.

One of the things that makes the Shaw script so attractive, to me at
least, is its simplicity and clean lines. The last thing I would want
would be to add a lot of nearly microscopic fussy decorations and
ornate Rococo flourishes to the classic lines of the script.

I'm of the school of thought that prefers my written words to be
thought of as arbitrary symbols perhaps embodying some mnemonic
information to hint at the sound of the word. Our present system of
English orthography fills that role very nicely. Making rôle wear a
hat on its "o" just confuses the issue.

<I wouldn't. And given enough time, I could count to any number I choose
<using my fingers....

<Regardless of any feats of convoluted numerical prestidigitation though,
<I'd still be counting in base-10 which is a small round hole compared to the
<big square peg of base-60. Regardless of the number base, any intuitive
<system of measures needs to be based on that number-base's, erm, base. Which
<was my point of course.

<As you knew :)

<P.

<(apologies for the top posting - please direct all complaints to Mr Gates of
<Redmond)

Makes me wonder is there a race of alien centrepeeds out there somewhere in the universe using base 100?

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.